Read the comments.

October 6, 2026 Joshua White, Acting Director Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 RE: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation public comment Submitted electronically to https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FS-2025-0001-342438 on October 6, 2026 Dear Acting Director White, I am an individual Alaskan writing on my own behalf and on behalf of my family and future generations. I was raised and currently live in Southeast Alaska alongside the Tongass National Forest. The federal government should retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and should not proceed with rescission of the rule. The federal government should retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule for the Tongass National Forest. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule should not be changed or altered. Time and time again Americans have come out en masse in support of the Roadless Rule on federal land. This is particularly true for the Tongass National Forest, which holds much of this nation’s remaining roadless areas. The Roadless Rule has widespread support among Alaskans and among Southeast Alaskans who live in and around the Tongass. We see retaining unloaded areas as critical for the protection of a sound and healthy ecosystem in our region. The Roadless Rule provides critical protections for wildlife and helps to maintain habitat connectivity and, critically, productivity. Areas that are roaded have consistently over time become poorer producers of salmon and deer, key species that we rely upon for food security and for our families and dinner tables. Roading wild and unloaded places is permanent, or as near as humans get to permanent. Nowhere in this country where roads have been introduced have the areas been cleared of roads at a later time. Just about damn near everywhere in this country is within 5-10 miles of a road. This means that unroaded areas are a critically threatened national resource. There is no evidence that this vital quality can be restored. This country has recognized the importance of protecting roadless areas since the Wilderness Act of 1964. In the intervening 60 years protecting the remaining roadless areas has only become more important, and ever more critical. In the Tongass National Forest it is clear that roading has a negative impact on salmon habitat. Roading increases erosion, increases the speed and force of surface water flow, and has consistently been associated with blocked riparian habitat for anadromous fish, including habitat for the key five species of salmon; coho, chinook, chum, sockeye, and pink that are commercially harvested and provide critical income for Alaskans and others. In the Tongass, the Roadless Rule does not prevent transportation corridors between communities, utility corridors, or roads for access to key projects like mines or hydroelectric power sites. Here in Southeast Alaska we consider the Roadless Rule as critically important to protect the area from further large scale clearcut logging. The Tongass has already been heavily hit and unsustainably overharvested. Further clearcut logging projects should not take place, particularly at large scale, and in particular in or nearby the Inventoried Roadless Areas. The 2001 Roadless Rule should be retained to help protect the area from further logging. Drop the rescission! Leave the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place and intact and unaltered! Your fellow American, Aaron Brakel 309 D Street Douglas, Alaska, 99824

Submitted via www.regulations.gov RIN 0596–AD66 US Forest Service, USDA Joshua White, Acting Director Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 RE: Removal of 2001 Roadless Rule, EIS and Economic Impacts Dear Director White, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Removal of the Roadless Rule. We did not support the Roadless Rule when it was forced through in 2000. Eliminating proper forest management is never a good plan. After timber harvesting and thinning were stopped, grazing curtailed, species used as weapons against common sense practices, and the Roadless Rule passed forests, particularly across the west, declined health-wise rapidly and lead to catastrophic fires. We were subjected to several of them. Prior to all of this there was selective timber harvesting, with the timber companies, mostly local businesses, maintaining existing roads and building new ones where needed with terrain and drainage needs considered. Water was abundant and wildlife flourished side by side with livestock grazing, both using water sources developed by ranchers. Recreational users loved coming to the forests, most had done so for generations. Local residents had access to firewood, helping keep the forest cleaned up. Societies, cultures, and economies were meshed together, loving and caring for the local environment. Then when the outside groups seeking an easy way to make money came in they used animals, plants, bugs, etc., as tools to stop the wise use of our resources and used no science besides self-created “papers”. They have never done an on the ground project to benefit any of the species they profess to protect. In fact, some of these species have either declined (loach & spikedace minnows), or when properly studied, discovered to not be limited at all (New Mexico meadow jumping mouse). Rescinding the Roadless Rule doesn’t mean roads will be built everywhere. Some areas are not conducive to that kind of activity, but the local forester and experts can make that decision based on real conditions. Many of the areas closed had viable timber available on them. When contracts are large enough or smaller ones in close proximity to each other it makes more economic sense for timbermen, which is important for them but also for forest health, local economies & communities, plus local, state, and federal tax revenues. That’s so important for counties like Greenlee in Arizona where most of the land is Federal. The user fees went from the hundreds of thousands of dollars to the tens of thousands. Those dollars go for schools and roads. Fires are so costly not only as they are being fought, but the costs continue for many years due to flooding, dead trees falling, lost homes, businesses, animals, both domestic and wild, and tourism. We appreciate this move towards common sense forest management. The forest, our communities, businesses, and wildlife desperately need it! Respectfully, Bill & Barbara Marks

October 6, 2026 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Attn: Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 Re: RIN 0596-AD66 — Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation Dear Forest Service Leadership: I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain strong protections for Inventoried Roadless Areas. Please see attached letter. Thank you, Valerie Piet Flagstaff, AZ

The Honorable Brooke Rollins Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20250 Dear Secretary Rollins, I am writing to urge you to select the No Action Alternative and keep the national Roadless Rule fully intact. The rule protects some of the last unfragmented backcountry in our national forests, and repealing it would put more than 40 million acres at risk of new road construction and industrial development. I live in Ojai, California, at the edge of the Los Padres National Forest. For over a decade I have hiked the Nordhoff Inventoried Roadless Area, which rises just above my home. I have watched it through drought, fire, and recovery, and it remains one of the quiet, wild places that make this community what it is. My family and I also hike and camp in the Sespe-Frazier Inventoried Roadless Area, where my kids have learned what it means to spend time in country that is still wild. Places like these cannot be replaced once roads cut through them. Across the Los Padres, more than 600,000 acres of roadless land are at stake. These lands matter for several reasons. Wildlife and biodiversity - Roadless forests give mountain lions, black bears, California condors, and many other species the large, connected habitat they need. Roads fragment that habitat, and they put the native plant communities these animals depend on at risk too. Clean drinking water - Roadless areas protect headwaters and watersheds that supply drinking water to communities downstream. More roads mean more erosion and sedimentation, and poorer water quality. Wildfire - I speak about this issue from experience. I worked as a seasonal wildland firefighter for eight years across the Mountain West with the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Joshua Tree National Park and I know how fires start and spread. You argue that repealing the Roadless Rule would improve fire management, but research shows that wildfires are more likely to start near roads, because roads bring people and ignition sources deeper into the forest. The rule already allows many forest management and fire mitigation activities. In my experience, what makes communities safer is investing in defensible space, home hardening, and prescribed fire near communities, not building new roads into remote backcountry. The Roadless Rule has protected our national forests for more than two decades with broad public support. Please keep it in place, choose the No Action Alternative, and protect America's remaining intact forests for the next generation. Thank you for your consideration.

Secretary Brooke Rollins U.S. Department of Agriculture 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. The North Country Garden Club of Long Island, New York is deeply committed to conservation and environmental stewardship and has advocated for the protection of forests, flora, fauna, and biodiversity for well over a century, which is why we strongly oppose a rollback that would threaten ancient botanical carbon sinks, fragment vital wildlife corridors, and put at risk pristine watersheds supplying clean drinking water to more than 24 million Americans. Our members of the NCGC a Garden Club of America Member Club, appreciate the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA’s)—hiking, camping, fishing, horseback riding, birdwatching, backpacking, skiing, hunting, and viewing wildlife and the beautiful scenery in these largely undisturbed landscapes. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would irreparably harm these stunning landscapes, and, in turn, the well-being of our members who cherish and depend upon them. NCGC members spend time in and deeply value Inventoried Roadless Areas. These places matter to our organization as they provide clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, solitude, and increasingly rare intact forests. The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protection. USDA has not adequately assessed the reasonably foreseeable national and regional environmental effects of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. While later reviews may evaluate individual projects, they would not address foreseeable programmatic impacts at scale from landscape fragmentation, habitat connectivity, native plants and invasive species. interstate or inter-forest migration corridors, or regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources. Rescission would also remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest, relying on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, but it has not demonstrated the earlier environmental analysis adequately evaluates rescission. Tribal consultation remains incomplete. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision. I urge you to keep the national protection of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.

Kathryn Dyas 3405 6th Ave NW, Austin, MN 55912 kath56ryn@gmail.com 507.279.0972 October 5, 2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 RE: Opposition to the Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket ID: FS-2025-0001) Dear Director, As a former national park ranger for ten seasons in Utah, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Protecting inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) is vital for maintaining ecological integrity, protecting clean water, and preserving backcountry recreation. I am deeply concerned about how this sweeping policy shift will impact the lands surrounding Canyonlands National Park in Utah. While the U.S. Forest Service manages the Manti-La Sal National Forest adjacent to the southeast and west of the park, any administrative action that opens nearby federal lands to road construction, commercial logging, or mineral extraction directly threatens the greater Canyonlands ecosystem. I urge the Forest Service to maintain full 2001 Roadless Rule protections for the following reasons: 1. Cross-Boundary Ecological Impacts on Canyonlands National Park Ecosystems do not stop at agency borders. The watersheds, wildlife corridors, and viewsheds of Canyonlands National Park are intimately tied to the surrounding high-elevation national forest lands, including the Abajo and La Sal mountain ranges. Introducing new roads and industrial activities in nearby IRAs will increase habitat fragmentation, disrupt critical migration corridors for large mammals, and alter delicate desert hydrology. 2. Degradation of Watersheds and Water Quality The arid landscapes of southeastern Utah rely on pristine headwater streams flowing from unroaded forest areas. Increased erosion, runoff, and sediment from road construction upstream will inevitably degrade downstream water quality within the Colorado River and Green River watersheds, directly harming the aquatic resources and riparian ecosystems protected inside Canyonlands National Park. 3. Destruction of Backcountry Recreation and Quiet Character Canyonlands National Park and its surrounding forest lands are globally renowned for their dark skies (it is an International Dark Sky park), natural soundscapes, and remote backcountry recreation opportunities. Expanding road networks nearby will increase noise pollution, degrade viewsheds visible from within the park's overlooks (such as the Needles and Island in the Sky districts), and diminish the wild, primitive experience that millions of visitors seek. 4. Severe Backlog on Existing Forest Roads The Forest Service already faces a multi-billion-dollar road maintenance backlog nationwide. Removing protections from IRAs to allow new road infrastructure is fiscally irresponsible and diverts critical resources away from maintaining and repairing the agency's existing, deteriorating road network. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to withdraw the proposed rescission and uphold the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule to ensure the long-term protection of Utah's public lands and the iconic greater Canyonlands ecosystem. Thank you for considering these substantive comments. Sincerely, Kathryn Dyas (I give permission to use this typed name as my signature)

(Submitted via Portal) TO: Director, Ecosystem Management Coordinator 210 14th Street, SW, MAILSTOP 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 Date 10/5/26 Re: 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Reference #: RIN 0596-AD66 I live in the Pacific Northwest, where I enjoy hiking, camping, fishing and back packing, and I am writing in support of keeping the roadless rule. Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, keeps the current Roadless Area Conservation Rule intact. Please consider my comments and please choose alternative 1. Roadless areas provide crucial habitat for more species than we can count- some of them threatened or endangered, and all of them dependent on each other and the land they live on. Animals need to be able to move freely through their habitat to conduct their normal lives. Roads break up the landscape, causing damage not just to the exact location of the road but also to the surrounding area. Debris from the construction, disruption to the normal flow of water and increased sediment being washed into bodies of water all change the landscape in ways that are detrimental. Roadless areas protect clean water. This water is habitat for many species of fish, invertebrates and frogs, and it is drinking water for people. All life depends on the water, from the smallest insect that lays its eggs in the water to the bat that eats the insect to the plants that are fertilized by the bat guano, and continuing along the food chain. Road construction increases fire risk- most fires start near a road. Therefore, building more roads does not make sense as a way to protect against forest fires. The Forest Service doesn’t have the resources to maintain the roads for which it is already responsible, so it seems irresponsible to build more. When we travel the region for outdoor recreation, we buy gear and food. We support the economies in the towns we pass through. Like most Americans, I greatly value and want to protect our public lands. We need these lands for both quiet and excitement, for challenging ourselves and for appreciating beauty. We are so lucky to have such spectacular public lands- we should safeguard them and not squander them.

October 5, 2026 Director Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 Re: 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft EIS - RIN 0596-AD66 Dear Director, The Custer Gallatin Working Group is a collaborative that works to develop agreements around priority areas and approaches for project work on the Custer Gallatin National Forest. The CGWG represents a wide range of stakeholder interests including County Commissioners, representatives of conservation NGOs, the ski industry, agriculture and ranching, recreation, hunters, anglers, outfitters, mining, and the timber industry. We support active and balanced approaches to public land management based on common sense, credible research and the values and priorities of the public. We support forest restoration, fire risk reduction, commercial harvesting, and timber stand improvement that can help sustain the forest products industry at the same time protect healthy wildlife populations. We also support a variety of recreational opportunities in our national forests, both motorized and quiet. And we believe the Forest Service must be fiscally responsible in recognizing their deferred maintenance backlog and the need to maintain their roads to standard. We do not see these things in conflict with one another. Based on our experiences we believe there are opportunities to strategically modify the management of Inventoried Roadless Areas, to better enable the Forest Service to increase active management in areas where it makes sense and retain protections for priority backcountry roadless areas. However, the approach to Roadless Rule modifications in Alternative 3 is not adequate. Revisions to the rule should be informed by hosting public meetings and listening to local stakeholders. Affected communities should have a say in decisions to increase access to some roadless lands, while balancing the important natural values of these lands. For example, communities should have the opportunity to apply craft locally-informed boundary adjustments that met the needs and interests of affected communities. Rescinding the rule with no public meetings and a three-to-four-week comment period is insufficient for our groups, who primarily meet monthly, to review and understand the DEIS and to craft meaningful comments that members can support. Therefore, we request the Forest Service to offer a longer comment period for this DEIS, public meetings, and other forms of stakeholder engagement. We also would suggest that instead of relying on expensive and time-consuming forest-by-forest updates to Forest Plans, that the Forest Service reconsider the merits of state-level rulemaking. A Montana Roadless Rule, guided by a non-partisan committee of scientists and forest stakeholders, could build on the good work being done through state Stewardship Agreements, the Good Neighbor Authority, and the long history and experience of collaboration occurring across the state. We know from experience that differing perspectives can find common ground on forest management when conversations are grounded in shared values and time is invested in working to build consensus. We encourage the Forest Service to reconsider its approach to this process and follow the examples set by the successful forest collaborative movement in Montana. Sincerely, John Prinkki, Chairman, Custer Gallatin Working Group

Secretary Brooke Rollins U.S. Department of Agriculture 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 — Opposition to Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Comments on the DEIS Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge USDA to select the No Action Alternative. I have spent time in Lake Tahoe throughout my life. Its forests, clear water, and mountain landscapes are part of my childhood memories and remain an important part of my life today. My connection to Tahoe has shaped my appreciation for public lands and the value of protecting places that people return to across generations. As an early childhood educator, I also care deeply about children having opportunities to explore nature, follow their curiosity, and build a connection to the world around them. The value of intact forests includes these experiences, which are difficult to capture in an economic analysis. I ask USDA to consider how additional roads and timber harvesting could affect the natural character of these places and the experiences they offer families. I understand the importance of reducing wildfire risk. The existing Rule already allows prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. Before removing protections nationwide, USDA should identify which necessary management activities are actually prevented by the Rule and explain why targeted changes would not adequately address those barriers. I am concerned that deferring environmental review to individual projects would leave the broader consequences of rescission insufficiently examined. Please revise the DEIS to assess the combined national and regional effects on forest fragmentation, wildlife corridors, native plants, watersheds, and drinking-water sources. For the Tongass National Forest, USDA should also demonstrate that its environmental analysis adequately addresses this proposal and complete meaningful Tribal consultation before making a final decision, including consideration of subsistence, cultural resources, and fish and wildlife. Spending time outdoors helps me recharge and connect with people I love. I want future generations to have those same opportunities. Please retain the Roadless Rule, address specific forest-management needs through targeted measures, and fully evaluate the broader consequences of removing these protections. Sincerely, Megan Reed Lockareff

October 5, 2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 RE: Comments on Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Docket No. FS-2025-0001; RIN 0596-AD66 Dear Director: The City of Harrisonburg respectfully submits these comments in opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The City requests that the Forest Service select the No Action alternative and retain the Roadless Rule. The Rule provides nationally consistent safeguards that generally prohibit road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas, subject to limited exceptions. Those safeguards are essential to protecting the water resources, recreation opportunities, and community benefits on which Harrisonburg relies. Harrisonburg has a longstanding and direct interest in management of the George Washington National Forest (GWNF). In 2008, the Harrisonburg City Council adopted a resolution calling on the Forest Service to provide comprehensive management and protection of drinking-water resources within the GWNF. In 2010, the City reiterated that maintaining protection of its water resources was the most significant issue associated with the Forest Plan. Those concerns remain unchanged. The GWNF is integral to the protection of Harrisonburg's drinking-water supply. The City provides drinking water to more than 60,000 people and relies on surface-water intakes on the Dry River and North River; as well as constructing a new supply from the South Fork of the Shenandoah River. These supplies are fed by headwaters that flow from nearby roadless areas. The Skidmore Fork, Gum Run, Oak Knob, Little River, Ramseys Draft Addition, Crawford Mountain, and Elliott Knob Roadless Areas all help protect watersheds important to the City. The City's Dry River source illustrates the public value of maintaining these protections. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the source as minimally affected by development, of sufficiently high quality to require relatively little treatment, and positioned to provide gravity flow to the Water Treatment Facility. Protecting this type of high-quality source water avoids or reduces future treatment and energy costs borne by utility customers. Protecting drinking-water watersheds also supports long-term water-supply resilience for Harrisonburg and other Shenandoah Valley communities. Road construction and associated ground disturbance can increase erosion and sedimentation, adversely affecting streams and downstream water supplies. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would eliminate an important preventive safeguard. Local forest planning and site-specific environmental review should reinforce, not replace, the Rule's clear, nationally applicable protections for inventoried roadless areas. Roadless areas also provide significant recreation, habitat, and economic benefits to Harrisonburg and the surrounding region. They support hiking, mountain biking, hunting, angling, and backcountry experiences that draw visitors to the Shenandoah Valley and sustain local businesses. Their intact forests and cold, clean streams support wildlife, including native brook trout, while helping preserve the natural character that makes this region a destination for residents and visitors alike. The City recognizes the Forest Service's need to address wildfire, forest health, and other management needs. The existing Roadless Rule already includes exceptions and does not preclude all management activity. Rescission is neither necessary nor appropriate to preserve the ability to address site-specific risks. Any forest-management approach affecting roadless areas must continue to protect source-water quality and quantity and provide meaningful early coordination with the local governments that depend on those watersheds. For these reasons, the City of Harrisonburg strongly opposes rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urges the Forest Service to retain the Rule. Maintaining these safeguards is a prudent and cost-effective means of protecting Harrisonburg's drinking-water supplies, supporting the regional recreation economy, and preserving important natural resources for current and future generations. Sincerely, Alexander Banks VI City Manager City of Harrisonburg

October 6, 2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination U.S. Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 Re: Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Docket No. FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 Dear Director: I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule protects roughly 45 million acres of largely undeveloped National Forest land. Eliminating those protections nationwide is an unnecessarily broad response to concerns about wildfire, forest health, and local management flexibility. I support responsible forest management where genuine wildfire risks, insect damage, disease, or hazardous fuel conditions exist. But those problems should be addressed through targeted, scientifically justified action in specific areas, not by removing national protections from tens of millions of acres. Roadless areas protect far more than scenery. They safeguard watersheds, drinking water, wildlife habitat, recreation, hunting and fishing opportunities, intact ecosystems, and large areas of public land that are increasingly difficult to replace. New road construction can also create its own long-term problems, including erosion, sedimentation, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, increased human access, and permanent maintenance costs. Once an intact roadless landscape is fragmented, the damage may be impossible to fully reverse. The Forest Service has argued that greater flexibility is needed to address wildfire risk. If a particular roadless area presents a documented danger to nearby communities, then the agency should identify that area, explain the risk, evaluate alternatives, and allow the public to review the proposed action. A problem in one forest should not become the justification for removing protections from roadless lands across the entire country. This proposal is especially significant because rescinding the rule would remove a nationwide safeguard and leave future roadbuilding, timber, and other management decisions to more localized processes. That could lead to decades of piecemeal development across landscapes Americans have long expected to remain substantially undeveloped. Our National Forests are public lands. Their value cannot be measured only by timber production, road access, or short-term economic development. Their value also lies in the clean water they protect, wildlife they sustain, recreation they provide, and natural landscapes they preserve for future generations. I respectfully urge USDA and the U.S. Forest Service to: Withdraw the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule. Retain national protections for inventoried roadless areas. Address wildfire and forest-health concerns through targeted, science-based management. Require meaningful environmental review and public participation before significant changes are made to individual roadless areas. America does not have to choose between forest management and conservation. We can protect communities from wildfire while still protecting the nation’s remaining undeveloped National Forest lands. Bottom Line is......Please keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Respectfully submitted, Roger Brokaw 245 Venetian Gdns Gulfport, Mississippi 39507 snglr@aol.com

10/6/2026 Under Secretary Michael Boren United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC 20250 Chief Tom Schultz United States Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC 20250 Dear Under Secretary Boren and Chief Schultz, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Department of Agriculture’s proposed revisions to the 2005 Travel Management Rule, as outlined in the recent Notice of Intent (NOI). Living right on the edge of the Coconino National Forest, I experience firsthand the vital importance of balanced, thoughtful land management. As an avid mountain biker who spends countless hours on the trails here in Arizona, as well as exploring the incredible national forests of California, Utah, New Mexico, Idaho and Colorado, I know how essential clear, well-managed travel plans are for protecting the quality of our public lands and the outdoor recreation economy. For over two decades, the 2005 Travel Management Rule has successfully provided a framework where diverse user groups—hikers, mountain bikers, hunters, anglers, horseback riders, and motorized recreationists—can coexist. Reversing this framework will endanger public safety, damage wildlife habitat and clean water resources, and degrade the quiet, non-motorized recreation opportunities that millions of visitors depend on. Any updates to travel management must preserve the following core principles: Maintain the closed-unless-designated default: Flipping the rule to make routes "open unless designated closed" would lead to a web of user-created trails, destroying natural vegetation, harming wildlife, and eroding non-motorized trail experiences. Protect natural and cultural resources: Decisions must prioritize soil health, watersheds, and wildlife habitats while minimizing conflicts between different user groups. Ensure robust local and public input: Local residents, mountain bikers, recreationists, Tribal Nations, and local communities must have a meaningful voice in access decisions. Maintain clear route designations: Clear signage, up-to-date digital Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUMs), and user education are essential so visitors know where motorized access is permitted. Account for long-term maintenance costs: The Forest Service already faces a massive backlog in trail and road maintenance. Expanding motorized routes without guaranteed resources for upkeep places an unfair burden on taxpayers and local land managers. The existing rule already provides a clear, public process to modify routes and update Motor Vehicle Use Maps as local needs change. We do not need a sweeping rule change that jeopardizes sensitive landscapes and quiet recreation across the American West. I ask the Forest Service to uphold these protective principles so that our national forests in Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and across the nation remain healthy, accessible, and safe for generations to come. Sincerely, Thomas Turnbull Flagstaff, Arizona

Date: October 6, 2026 To: Public Comments Processing Attn: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20250 Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Rule: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD61) To Whom It May Concern: I strongly oppose the repeal of the 2001 Roadless Rule.The rule has broad bipartisan support throughout the electorate. About 99% of submitted comments regarding the recent proposed repeal have urged backcountry protection to remain in place. Findings from the USDA’s own draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) indicate that repealing the rule is likely to cause economic and environmental harm. More roads will increase human caused wildfire risks, harm old growth forests and degrade water quality due to increased runoff. On Sept 3, 2026 a bipartisan group of 164 US Senators and Representatives sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, in support of the Roadless Rule. New roads in Wilderness Areas will fragment and degrade habitats, increasing blockage of seasonal migrations, thus causing a decline in species abundance. In 1863, in the Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln said: "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Please listen to the people and allow the Roadless Rule to stand!

widespread grading of what is now untrammeled wildlife habitat, much of which plays host to endangered and threatened species including jaguars, ocelots, Mexican spotted owls and Chiricahua leopard frogs. Supporters of the rule change say it will give federal officials more flexibility in preventing and fighting wildfires, while opponents say opening up more national forest lands to roadbuilding will increase those fires. There are two ways to submit public comments: 1. Electronically (preferred): To make a comment, go to www.regulations.gov/commenton/FS-2025-0001-342438 2. Snailmail: Hard copy letters must be mailed to the Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th St. SW, Mailstop 1108, Washington, DC 20250-1124. source: https://tucson.com/news/local/environment/article_339d1281-0217-444a-a8dc-b13c28498f8b.html View/Reply Online | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic widespread grading of what is now untrammeled wildlife habitat, much of which plays host to endangered and threatened species including jaguars, ocelots, Mexican spotted owls and Chiricahua leopard frogs. Supporters of the rule change say it will give federal officials more flexibility in preventing and fighting wildfires, while opponents say opening up more national forest lands to roadbuilding will increase those fires. There are two ways to submit public comments: 1. Electronically (preferred): To make a comment, go to www.regulations.gov/commenton/FS-2025-0001-342438 2. Snailmail: Hard copy letters must be mailed to the Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th St. SW, Mailstop 1108, Washington, DC 20250-1124. source: https://tucson.com/news/local/environment/article_339d1281-0217-444a-a8dc-b13c28498f8b.html View/Reply Online | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic widespread grading of what is now untrammeled wildlife habitat, much of which plays host to endangered and threatened species including jaguars, ocelots, Mexican spotted owls and Chiricahua leopard frogs. Supporters of the rule change say it will give federal officials more flexibility in preventing and fighting wildfires, while opponents say opening up more national forest lands to roadbuilding will increase those fires. There are two ways to submit public comments: 1. Electronically (preferred): To make a comment, go to www.regulations.gov/commenton/FS-2025-0001-342438 2. Snailmail: Hard copy letters must be mailed to the Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th St. SW, Mailstop 1108, Washington, DC 20250-1124. source: https://tucson.com/news/local/environment/article_339d1281-0217-444a-a8dc-b13c28498f8b.html View/Reply Online | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic It will destroy the pristine habitat.

U.S. Department of agriculture and Forest Service Director, Ecosystems Management Coordination 201 14th street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 RE: Comments Opposing Proposed Repeal of 2001 Roadless Rule Docket FS-2025-0001 To U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forest Service, I submit this comment in strong opposition to the Department’s proposed recession of the Roadless Rule, published at Fed. Reg. 53827 (Aug. 20, 2026). USDA should withdrew the proposal in its entirety and select the “no action” alternative in the final environmental impact statement and Record of Decision. Without elaboration, here are some of the issues that support my comments: The roadless areas generally, but in particular the watersheds of the Clearwater and Salmon Rivers in central Idaho, provide the last remaining strongholds for endanger salmon and steelhead trout in the lower 48 states. These areas require stronger protection rather than the opening of access for exploitation. The Forest Service’s inventory of existing roads, culverts and bridges carries an enormous backlog of overdue maintenance. The service has neither the budget nor manpower to address those existing condition. Needless to say there is neither the demand, will nor funding to build and maintain new roads. The vast majority of wildfires in the National Forest are human caused. Building more roads increases the risk of human caused fire in steep and remote back country. The Service should focus on access and fire prevention at the urban interface where life and property is most seriously in jeopardy. There are a great many other reason that the Rule should not be rescinded, but basically it’s just a dumb idea. Please use the Forest Service expertise to solve their existing challenges and not create more. G. Harvey Morrison 3805 S. Lamonte Street Spokane, WA 99203

Secretary Brooke Rollins U.S. Department of Agriculture 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections. USDA has not adequately assessed the impacts of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. Impacts would include landscape fragmentation negating habitat connectivity, damage to native plants and proliferation of invasive species. It would limit interstate or inter-forest migration corridors and impact regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources. Rescission would remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest. It would rely on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, which does not adequately evaluate rescission. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision. I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place.

Sarah Grimes Barron and Christopher L Barron 94 Point Rd. Brunswick ME 04011 Ecosystem Management Coordination Attn: Roadless Area Conservation Proposed Rule U.S. Forest Service, USDA 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20250 Subject: Public Comment on Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation Proposed Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my strong support for maintaining the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am strongly opposed to the proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Protected roadless wilderness provides irreplaceable sanctuary for people looking to escape modern stresses. These isolated areas allow outdoor enthusiasts to truly recharge and refresh themselves in Nature, away from the noise and disruptions of motorized traffic. Preserving these undeveloped landscapes ensures that future generations will continue to have access to authentic backcountry experiences impossible to find near paved infrastructure. Furthermore, intact roadless areas are vital for wildlife, as road construction severely fractures critical habitats and disrupts essential migration corridors. Roads create physical barriers that isolate animal populations, restrict access to foraging grounds, and increase vehicle collision risks. By preventing road building, we maintain the ecological connectivity that large mammals and delicate species need to thrive, ensuring wildlife can move freely and safely across public lands without human interference. Finally, keeping these lands roadless is a crucial strategy for forest resilience. Research shows that building roads into pristine forests actually escalates fire risks and subsequent damage by increasing human-caused ignitions and introducing invasive, flammable vegetation along clearings. Rather than improving safety, new roads can act as wind tunnels that fuel faster-moving blazes. Protecting our inventoried roadless areas is the most effective way to safeguard municipal watersheds and prevent severe ecological degradation. Thank you for considering my feedback on this critical matter. I urge the US Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service to protect these essential public lands and withdraw the proposed rescission. Sincerely, Sarah Grimes Barron and Christopher L Barron

October 2, 2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination USDA Forest Service 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 Re: Docket FS-2025-0001, Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Comment in opposition to rescission; support for Alternative 1 (No Action) Dear Director: I oppose the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, in Docket FS-2025-0001. I live in Las Vegas and spend a large part of every year backpacking, hiking and occasionally rappelling in remote country across the western United States. I am a user of the backcountry, not a visitor to its trailheads, and the experience I value most is the one roadless land exists to protect: a place with no motor vehicle noise, no sign of other people, and a view of land that looks as it did centuries ago. That experience is rare and cannot be rebuilt. In Washington I hiked 20 miles into the Olympic wilderness and looked out over untouched country to the horizon. In Idaho's Sawtooth range I hiked deep into old-growth forest and slept under skies with no light pollution. Idaho has its own roadless rule, which this proposal leaves in place, so I raise the Sawtooth only to show what intact backcountry offers. I am asking that the same protection stay in place in the states where it is now at risk. Those states include the places I visit most. In Arizona, the Arizona National Scenic Trail crosses the Mazatzal and Boulder roadless areas of the Tonto National Forest, part of roughly 1.17 million acres of inventoried roadless land in the state. Near my home, Nevada has more than 3 million acres of inventoried roadless land across the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Inyo National Forests and the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. In Washington, roadless lands on the Olympic National Forest border the park and shelter salmon spawning habitat. In Utah, about 4 million acres of national forest would lose protection. A road, a clear-cut or a mine ends solitude and quiet for every later visitor, and no restoration brings them back. The Draft EIS does not justify that loss, for these reasons. Roads increase wildfire ignitions. Research in Fire Ecology found that fires are about four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless area, and the agency's own analysis acknowledges that human-caused wildfires could become more frequent if roads open this terrain to vehicles and campfires. The rescission would add ignition sources to remote forest where fire response is slowest. The benefit is small and the cost is large. As reported from the agency's own figures, rescission would raise national timber harvest by only about 5 to 10 percent, while the Forest Service already carries a road maintenance backlog of billions of dollars. Adding roads to the least accessible land in the system adds to a bill the agency cannot pay. The Final EIS should weigh that cost against the recreation economy that depends on undeveloped backcountry. Wildlife and water depend on intact habitat. Roadless areas provide core habitat and connecting corridors, and road construction is a leading source of sediment in streams. The Final EIS should state the effect on threatened and endangered species and on salmon streams, area by area. The public process is too short. The comment period is a fraction of the time the 2001 rule received, and the Draft EIS concedes that full rescission carries the greatest potential for adverse effects on Tribal rights and interests. The 2001 rule has worked for 25 years and still leaves room for fire management and local decisions. I ask the Forest Service to retain it, to select Alternative 1, and to respond in the Final EIS to the specific concerns above. Respectfully, Avid Outdoorsman

Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 (RIN 0596-AD66) — Public Comment in Opposition to the Rescission / Amendment of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To: Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 I. Introduction I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission and amendment of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). As a resident and advocate for Teton County, Wyoming, I am deeply concerned about the potential impacts of opening Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) within the Bridger-Teton National Forest to road construction, timber harvesting, and commercial development. The roadless landscapes surrounding Teton County represent an irreplaceable resource. Removing federal roadless protections in favor of localized discretion risks permanent damage to our ecological health, local economy, and public resources. II. Critical Wildlife Habitat and Ecosystem Integrity The Inventoried Roadless Areas in Teton County serve as vital sanctuaries for western wildlife within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Habitat Connectivity: These remote tracts provide core, contiguous habitat and critical movement corridors for species including grizzly bears, gray wolves, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep. Fragmentation Threats: Road construction and commercial logging break up contiguous forest canopy, introduce edge effects, create disturbance corridors, and encourage human-wildlife conflicts that degrade ecosystem resilience. III. Watershed Enhancement and Water Quality Protection The forests of Teton County are key headwaters for the Snake River Basin, providing critical ecological functions: Drinking Water & Quality: Roadless areas function as natural filtration systems, keeping sediment levels low and providing pristine drinking water for local communities downstream. Aquatic Habitat: Native cold-water fish, such as Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout, rely on clean, cold, and silt-free water. Industrial activity and road building increase soil erosion and sedimentation, threatening critical fish habitat. IV. Unsuitability for Commercial Logging Commercial timber extraction in the roadless areas of Teton County is ecologically unsustainable and economically inefficient: Steep Terrain & Soil Vulnerability: Much of the roadless terrain in the region is characterized by high elevation, steep slopes, and highly erodible soils, making road construction physically destructive and unstable. Low Timber Value: These slow-growing, high-altitude forests lack the commercial timber yields necessary to justify the immense public expenditure required to build and maintain access roads. Deferred Maintenance Deficit: Expanding road networks in remote areas creates long-term financial liabilities for the Forest Service, which already faces significant maintenance backlogs on existing national forest roads. V. Conclusion and Recommendation Rescinding or weakening the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens the water quality, wildlife habitat, and natural heritage of Teton County, Wyoming. The current national protections ensure that these high-value roadless lands remain intact for future generations. I respectfully request that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service withdraw the proposed rule change and maintain full protections under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule for all Inventoried Roadless Areas in Teton County and nationwide. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this critical proposed action. Sincerely, David G Brown

Secretary Brooke Rollins U.S. Department of Agriculture 201 - 14th Street, SW Washington, DC 20250 Mr. Thomas Schultz Chief, U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: Re: Docket No. FS-2025-0001 - Comments on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) I strongly urge USDA to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Rule) intact, select the No Action Alternative, and revise the DEIS as stated below. Over the course of my life, I have spent considerable time in our nation's Roadless Areas, including George Washington Forest where I have enjoyed hiking, picnicking, and relishing the flora and fauna. These Roadless Areas provide a rebalancing of life's stresses, connection to our natural world, and provide clean water and protected wildlife habitat in our nation's increasingly rare intact forests. I would like yours and my grandchildren to similarly enjoy what you and I have been blessed with. The current Rule already allows substantial forest management, including prescribed fire and other hazardous-fuels reduction. While USDA claims rescission would reduce wildfire risks, the DEIS cites research that: 1) the lack of roads has not prevented fire prevention or protection measures, and 2) acknowledges that almost 90% of wildfires are human caused and more than four times likely to ignite near a road. If specific constraints exist, USDA should identify and address those narrow constraints rather than remove the Rule’s nationwide protections. USDA has not adequately assessed the impacts of its decision to eliminate the Rule’s protections across 44.7 million acres of public lands. Deferring NEPA review to future site-specific individual projects will not address the regional and national consequences of rescission. Impacts would include landscape fragmentation negating habitat connectivity, damage to native plants and proliferation of invasive species. It would limit interstate or inter-forest migration corridors and impact regional watersheds. USDA should assess now where national rescission would put intact habitat, wildlife movement, and native plant communities at greatest risk, and where added roads and timber harvest could most threaten watersheds and drinking-water sources. Rescission would remove protections from 9.3 million acres in the Tongass National Forest. It would rely on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final EIS, which does not adequately evaluate rescission. USDA should fully consider Tribal concerns about subsistence, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, and intact landscapes before making a final decision. I urge you to keep the national protections of the Rule in place and reassess the reasonably foreseeable effects now.